Yesterday, I blogged about how the Michael Brown/Eric Garner protests, like the “Occupy” protests of a couple of years ago, are running their course and petering out, because other than generic demands for justice, fairness and equality – which no one would give the protesters a fight on – there is no actual purpose to them.
Blocking an intersection because you don\’t like what happened to Michael Brown, shutting a bridge or tunnel because you don\’t like what happened to Eric Garner, will not bring them back, and will not generate more justice, fairness or equality. What it will do is disrupt the daily lives of countless people – people of all colors – and anger them.
With this in mind, did you know that the diminishing, increasingly desperate-for-relevancy “protesters” tried a new strategy yesterday?
They called it BlackBrunchNY: groups of them suddenly converged on a number of brunch places in Manhattan (and in Oakland, California I am told) chanting slogans about “White privilege” (are Black people prevented from eating brunch?), reading off names of Black people they feel have been wronged, and generally annoying everyone of every color who was simply trying to eat their meal.
Maybe there is some deep meaning to this, but I guess I\’m not smart enough to figure out what it is. So can anyone tell me why disrupting brunchers will make White people feel guilty, privileged, and therefore more amenable to BlackBrunchNY protesters?
While I wait for an answer (one that I do not expect to get), I will point out that, just last year, New York City gave 73% of its mayoral vote to far-leftist bill de blasio, who has made it clear that he sympathizes with protests such as these…and that Oakland is, if anything, further left than New York is.
These are the people BlackBrunchNY wants to piss off?
Let me end by providing this link to the Washington Post article on yesterday\’s BlackBrunchNY protests. Do yourself a favor and read the comment section. See what they have to say – keeping in mind that WaPo commenters, in most cases, tend very strongly to the liberal/left side.
Here are a few specific examples (among many, many others):
“Tabloidsideshow. And it gets clicks, so the Post will perpetuate it, becauseit\’s all they do now.
But the simple fact is Yes,too many black young men die violently in America. And if no cop evershot anyone, they would still be doing it at 6 times the rate thatyoung white men die violently, and it would almost always be anotheryoung black man doing the killing. Cops don\’t create that problem andthey can\’t fix it for you either.
Yes, it\’s themuch harder problem to solve, so maybe the energy should be spentthere instead of on his carnival sideshow”“If there is an issue with the manner in which law enforcement interacts with minority communities, fine; that\’s something that bears closer examination. But to point fingers specifically at white civilians – who are simply eating breakfast – and somehow hold them accountable for police actions makes no sense and undermines the credibility of the concerns being protested.”
“Peacefulprotest is NYPD turning their backs on DeBlasio. Entering anestablishment and disrupting diners is not a peaceful protest. Theywere trying to provoke a violent reaction and thank goodness the mostthey got was yawns.”
If that\’s how Washington Post readers react…..etc.
Get the point? I hope so. Now let\’s both hope that some of these “protesters” start to get the point as well.
